TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1979 (1) TMI 129
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ly conceded by the learned counsel for the accountable person that this ground of appeal was neither before the Appellate CED. That being the position, we are not inclined to admit this ground of appeal in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Gurjar gravures P. Ltd(1). 4. The ground No.2 relates to valuation of the deceased's house property at 5-Gokhale Road, Calcutta. The accountable person has returned the value of this property at Rs. 4 Lakhs. The Asst. CED on the basis of the report of the Departmental Valuer estimated the value of this property at Rs. 5,49,000 which was confirmed by the Appellate Controller on appeal. 5. In the further appeal before us the learned counsel for the accountable person contended t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the lower authorities on the ground that the premises named as Kunja Kanta House was situated outside the town and was not a part of the palace. 8. Before us the leaned counsel for the assessee reiterated the same contentions as advanced before the lower authorities while the learned Departmental Representative furnished before us a copy of the valuation report of Sri D.L. Bhowmik, Valuation Officer-1, Bhubaneswar to show that the Kunja Kanta House was situated at Kunja Kanta area, Dhenkanal on the top of a hill inside the N.A.C. area but at the ourskirt of the town. 9. We are, therefore, satisfied that the house in question was not a part of the palace and, therefore, the lower authorities were justified in disallowing the accountab....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... value of the building at holding No.845 in Tulsipur, Cuttack. He contended that the said premises were tenanted one, income of which was assessed in the hands of the deceased during his life time. 14. We do not find any merit in the submission of the learned counsel for the accountable person. No evidence could be produced before us to show that the premises at holding No.845 and 845 A & B in Tulsipur are, Cuttack were a single unit of building more so when the buildings were marked with different holding numbers. We, therefore, find no reason to interfere with the order of the Appellate Controller on this point. 15. The next grievance is against disallowance of accountable person's claim for exemption of the value in respect of vaca....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ccountable person at Rs. 50,000 whereas the Asst. CED estimated the same at Rs. 60,060 which was confirmed by the Appellate Controller since he was of the opinion that the valuation was made as per WT Rules. 21. Before us the learned counsel for the accountable person contended that the shares in question were not quoted shares. Therefore, he submitted that the valuation of the same should have been made as per r. 1-D of the WT Rules. The learned Departmental Representative supported the orders of the lower authorities. We have seen the method applied by the lower authorities for valuation of these unquoted shares and we are satisfied that the valuation was not made as per r. 1-D of the WT Rules. We, therefore, vacate the orders of the l....